The Spiritual Path

Isn't it the journey that matters? The well-paved and weeded garden path or the haphazard path full of weeds and wildflowers? Is there anywhere Spirit can't be found?
But the well-paved and weeded path is quicker and more secure ... and many of the haphazard path full of weeds and wildflowers leads nowhere.

If man's sense was infallible, then there would be no need of paths, but it's not, in the whole process, man is the most fragile, the most fallible, and, as the old saying goes, "The man who defends himself in court has a fool for a lawyer", I would suggest "The man who follows his own way has a fool for a guide" :eek:

And is there anywhere Spirit can't be found? Yes, the evidence is abundant, but points to the fact that it's not the absence of Spirit, but man looking the wrong way.

Something to think about, anyway.

God bless,

Thomas
 
I wonder if you could evidence that with references? I can't think of any such 'disorganised spiritual structure' off the top of my head. Spiritual was never used as a concept distinct from religious, as far as I am aware.

In my studies of those one might regard as spiritual, their lives were highly organised and structured, indeed the self-discipline of 'spiritual practice' is far more demanding than of the lay faithful, for example.


Actually, I think the 'spiritual' person accepts the authority of the Tradition he or she follows, which transcends contingent factors such as this person or that ...

God bless,

Thomas
Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu immediately come to my mind.
 
I would say that the more we can learn about the Truth behind ALL religions...
Why? Is one not enough?

I would find a tradition and go for it ... an infinite number of lifetimes would still not be enough to exhaust any one tradition.

Most often we hear people speak positively for the Truths of the Gospel message as taught and demonstrated by the Christ ...
Then they are appropriating the Scripture of a Tradition, aren't they, but then they tend to choose selectively, which invariably involves turning a blind eye to the bits they find personally testing or arduous.

When a person knows, from experience and from participation, that LOVE is the highest LAW, this leaves that person with a (growing) recognition that the spiritual life is not constituted, and not defined, by a participation within some one or another *particular tradition*
Actually you are quite wrong, but typical of the self-affirming distortion of the message.

If you actually believed that LOVE is the highest LAW, then you would embrace the communal tradition, be it the Church of Christianity, or the Sangha of Buddhism, or whatever ... because you would love your neighbour.

But you don't. All you do is find fault and throw your toys out the pram when people disagree with you ...

It is only when one person tries to lord his own RELIGION over the heads ...
That's you mate, not me ... you constantly tell me how you are so much better than I, and Theosophy constantly claims to know better and be superior to all the Traditions that fall within its ken, and tell people what they should believe ...
 
myth, dogma, symbolism.....are completely disposable.... to some...
Only if you don't understand them.

Jesus, Buddha, Mohammed, Krishna, Lao, Tony Robbins.... (hey, I didn't say Jim Jones or David Koresh!) (oh, Ok I guess I did, but get over it) they are all our apparitions our Gurus, Prophets, G!ds that we believe we need.
OK, but if you're going to lump the first on your list in with the latter, than I'd say you really need to learn to discriminate ... you'd be the last person I'd ask about choosing a doctor, or a dentist.

As I have said elsewhere, each and every tradition is entire and complete in itself. Each is itself sufficient to realise what it teaches.

As the Dalai Lama said, if you won't find it in one, you won't find it in any ... the problem is with you, not the tradition.

Took me a long time to learn, but did a fair bit of looking along the way.

'A beginner who goes from one monastery (or tradition) to another is like a wild animal who jumps this way and that for fear of the halter.'
Saying of the Desert Fathers

God bless,

Thomas
 
hmmmm..... So David and Jim preached what was sufficient unto itself, entire and complete?

and if I had a book that said that some doctor or dentist performed miracles instead of using conventional tools and theory....

bottom line.... ALL traditions and dogmas are to be kept and utilized by THEIR believers, those who "understand" them. And disposable, not important or required for connection to the one, by those of other faiths.

ie Moses is enough for the Jew, Christ enough for the Christian, Mohammed enough for the Muslim, the Bahaulla, enough for the Bahai, the Great Spirit enough for the Native American, etc....

but some for some sects, denominations, traditions there is more...the teachings of the leaders are not enough, there is dance, and song, and smoke and mirrors, and chants, and poses and prose that are also added requirements....

but those requirements.....those are for those sects, denominations alone....the others may access all without them....or are free to create their own set of rules and regulations....and garner their own followers just as every tradition and tens of thousands of Christian denominations before them.....
 
Ah, but we have a corpus from Laozi and Chuangzi. That is enough, even if as individuals they never existed.

The teachings are "spiritual" even if not "Religious". Perhaps (jmho) the most spiritual and least religious of all the canons.

Thus, perhaps the most important (at least to me).
 
Why? Is one [Tradition] not enough?
When you can't even recognize the Truth/s of your own, no. It becomes useful, perhaps necessary, to look elsewhere. Once you have a little better perspective (which includes the recognition that Truth is EVERYwhere) ... THEN look back at your own.

Try it sometime, Thomas. Your life will be enriched.

ah-ah-ah ... I didn't say you *couldn't* see or recognize Truth w/in your own tradition. Just don't let's pretend it's any more, or less, than it is.

Thomas said:
I would find a tradition and go for it ... an infinite number of lifetimes would still not be enough to exhaust any one tradition.
So you would, so you have, and so you do. And I don't even disagree. If I count the various traditions or paths I've followed in 7 or 8 recent lifetimes, I won't get that many answers. What should that tell you?

Regardless, I reject - of necessity - your, and anyone else's proposition that all i need to do is chant Hare, or sit and worship Buddha, or give myself over to Jesus ... and that thereby I shall attain to enlightenment or salvation in this very lifetime.

Why?

Because I know better.

Better yet, why not practice the Dharma [live the life of Service] ... and SEE how quickly I can get to the goal.

{Hint: If my Salvation/Liberation alone were the/my goal, perhaps matters would be easier. Since I do NOT choose this as my goal, however, beyond a degree to which it obviously applies, and must ... there's more to think about, or attempt.}

And if that doesn't work for you, YOU walk your Path, and I'll walk mine ... but do please BUTT OUT if all you feel like doing is finding fault with me or mine. Isn't that what Respect entails?

Of course, but you tend to make all sorts of pretense to this, while I seem to have a knack for helping your TRUE COLORS to really shine, to really show forth. I'm not exactly proud of this, Thomas. It simply is ... what it IS. Remember, either we LEARN from our mistakes ... or ~

Perhaps it's a British thing. Something about refusal to accept another's Freedoms, inherent, God-given ... and deserving (perhaps needing) of being exercised.

As Bob Dylan put it (and as I likely heard it last time around): "A hero is someone who understands the responsibility that comes with his freedom."

What he did not say is that part of my job, or yours, is to go around telling people that Theosophy is for losers, or that Roman Catholicism is a dead-end road.

Keep that shit up, and you've written for yourself a very difficult Path, ahead. MARK {Andrew, actually, but _ fwiw.}

Thomas said:
Then they are appropriating the Scripture of a Tradition, aren't they, but then they tend to choose selectively, which invariably involves turning a blind eye to the bits they find personally testing or arduous.
Yes, Thomas. The Man told us that it would be our 7th Generation into which we would be working out some of these difficulties ... yet I kind of think it helps to accept the very tenet, for starters. THEN it's a whole lot easier to say, "Yes, I have brought upon myself the current difficulties, as well as the (right to) the given Opportunity ~ to effect Solutions, to SERVE. Thus, *LET ME* make the most of it! :)"

Can you say that?

Do you? [No, and for a very obvious reason. I could never extend an arm to such an one, so long as I get my fingers bitten off, slapped at, spit on and so forth. Thus, call me presumptuous and proud, vain and self-righteous. In this respect ... that I would even OFFER ... I can simply stand, and wait. Meanwhile, a whole boatload, potentially anyway, of other people are thrashing about in the water. Forgive me, Brother, but I must be busy elsewhere for awhile. ;)]

Thomas said:
Actually you are quite wrong, but typical of the self-affirming distortion of the message.
No, dear heart. Love IS the Highest Law. Stand United in that Recognition, or fall by the wayside and be crushed. It's that simple. Jagganatha doesn't take, or make, things personal. In this, you are mistaken. :eek:

You can Jesusify anything you like, or distort the meaning, as you say. But what you do not yet understand, may as well be in Vegas, or Cincinatti, or Poughkeepsie ... as London or Calcutta. YOU *simply* do not "get it"!

Thomas said:
If you actually believed that LOVE is the highest LAW, then you would embrace the communal tradition, be it the Church of Christianity, or the Sangha of Buddhism, or whatever ... because you would love your neighbour.
How would you ever know what I do or do not embrace. You, with your curmudgeony exterior, your long and withered finger pointed at each of us in Judgment, you know about as much on Community ... from direct experience ... as I do about typesetting.

Perhaps if you would stop applauding yourself for a moment, and give the jackals and the hyenas a break for a little while, stop practicing Handel's Messiah with them (truly, Thomas, did you really think they needed all that encouraging? all that coaching work?) ... maybe THEN you'd get a better dose of what COMMUNITY is all about.

Thomas said:
But you don't. All you do is find fault and throw your toys out the pram when people disagree with you ...
The pram is consciousness, and/or its container/s. The toy is your mind, your lower consciousness ... in short, the little self.

I suggest you treat it (nevermind me) with a little Respect. For when you cannot love your OWN self, then project this outward, you make a fool of youself and embarass us all ... judging and faulting others (who's here telling us all that our Tradition isn't wholesome, that we aren't on the Road because we aren't walking THE PATH, or a `legitimate' Path ... and which one must that be again, Thomas?)

Thomas said:
That's you mate, not me ... you constantly tell me how you are so much better than I, and Theosophy constantly claims to know better and be superior to all the Traditions that fall within its ken, and tell people what they should believe ...
You have here personified Theosophy, a Tradition, as you like to call them, yet actually the `Wisdom of God' ... just as you have the Love of God, which you have always confused with the particular expression 2100 years ago.

Better than you is the man who knows Love inside the child, inside the adult, within Nature and independent of all Earthly religions. The name of such is legion, yet it is not the demon or devil which you, and your unholy likeminded compatriots have set up as the Scapegoat for all the world's evils, all the world's problems.

The first and foremost of these is IGNORANCE. Please do not prove to us today that, this too, can become INCARNATE ~ in some men more than others, even to CARDINAL degree.

Indeed, some DO LIKE to tell others what they should believe, and burn and torture and persecute and harangue those who believe otherwise, or choose another PATH to the One, Universal, All-Embracing TRUTH [of which Love, Goodness and Beauty are operative effects, Laws or co-operative implications].

We do even have one such in our midst: Thomas, we do indeed.
 

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Chuang. Tzu said, "If you have the capacity to wander, how can you keep from wandering? But if you do not have the capacity to wander, how can you wander? A will that takes refuge in conformity, behavior that is aloof and eccentric - neither of these, alas, is compatible with perfect wisdom and solid virtue. You stumble and fall but fail to turn back; you race on like fire and do not look behind you. But though you may be one time a ruler, another time a subject, this is merely a matter of the times. Such distinctions change with the age and you cannot call either one or the other lowly. Therefore I say, the Perfect Man is never a stickler in his actions.[/FONT]
~Chuang Tzu--Section 26, "External Things"
 
Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu immediately come to my mind.
I don't know the teachings of either enough to comment, but both speak of the Way, and human fallibility, do they not?

When 'the way' is anything anyone wants it to be, it's not 'a way' at all, surely, it's just the untrained mind following the next whim that catches its attention.

Abu’l-Hasan Bushanji said, over a millennia ago:
“Sufism today is a name without a reality that was once a reality without a name.”

God bless,

Thomas
 
I don't know the teachings of either enough to comment, but both speak of the Way, and human fallibility, do they not?

When 'the way' is anything anyone wants it to be, it's not 'a way' at all, surely, it's just the untrained mind following the next whim that catches its attention.

Abu’l-Hasan Bushanji said, over a millennia ago:
“Sufism today is a name without a reality that was once a reality without a name.”

God bless,

Thomas

Taoism emphasizes individual spirituality over propriety and what they called "hollow rituals." They had a lot of run in with the Confucianists (and a few other religious movements,) who wanted to ritualize everything, and overlay a false order upon reality. Following a highly regimental routine actually runs counter to Taoist teachings.
 
hmmmm..... So David and Jim preached what was sufficient unto itself, entire and complete?
You said it, not me. I'm saying there's a lot of people assuming/claiming things about the way on the basis of that's the way it suits them.

... bottom line.... ALL traditions and dogmas are to be kept and utilized by THEIR believers, those who "understand" them.
Actually, that's a modern notion. Man of antiquity took it as given that he could not fathom the Mind of God. Today, many insist that something has to be given to him before they will invest themselves in anything. Consumer materialism again ...

This is an aspect of Tradition that is overlooked, a Tradition transcends the person, it speaks to the nature, or the Universal Man, rather than this or that individual: "But as many as received him, he gave them power to be made the sons of God, to them that believe in his name" (John 1:12) All anyone has to do is have faith ... anyone who thinks he has outgrown tradition has missed the boat, really.

but some for some sects, denominations, traditions there is more...the teachings of the leaders are not enough, there is dance, and song, and smoke and mirrors, and chants, and poses and prose that are also added requirements....
Well some things can be taught/learnt/experienced in different ways. And the engagement with the Divine engages the whole person, it's more than an intellectual engagement. So if Sacred Scripture, why not Sacred Song, Sacred Dance? Sacred Art, Sacred Space?

Bishop Kallistos Ware speaks of his conversion (or more accurately the trigger of a metanoia) to the Greek Orthodox Tradition, simply by happening to overhear the Liturgy being sung one evening as he walked passed a church. Others have talked of similar metanoia events triggered by sunsets, by a flower blooming, a touch ...

The problem of walking one's own path, is it defines the world according to oneself ... and without these elements, 'belief' soon becomes a mere intellectualism, which is largely what secularism assumes it to be (when not plain superstition).

God bless

Thomas
 
Modern tradition....what is modern....since year zero...or 325?

dance? I enjoy thoroughly the dances of universal peace... (that american sufi non reality I suppose...)

but to say you MUST dance? so all you in wheel chairs you are headed to my perceived hell....or you must chant, or call and respond...all you deaf and or mute...sorry...can't join the club... or if they get special dispensation...hee hee...I want the triple A rate too.
 
The problem of walking one's own path, is it defines the world according to oneself ... and without these elements, 'belief' soon becomes a mere intellectualism, which is largely what secularism assumes it to be (when not plain superstition) – Thomas

Not necessarily. If one accepts there is something besides matter and intellect (O, try spirit or creativity or G!D) belief is re-enforced by experience with that something else or “something beyond”. It is no longer mere intellectualism nor secularism nor superstition. If there is “something beyond” (I cannot scientifically prove this is so, but know it to be so to the core of my being) and it can interact with a single consciousness, it will. To postulate anything else is the worst kind of deism in my opinion, a G!D that cannot or will not interact with H!s children.
 
I believe I may have related this story before....

I was asked to build a temporary labrynth in a space....I used painters tape and put it down on the floor... I made a simple six circuit one in the entire space... After I 'built' it I thought I should have made it smaller so folks could access the space around the edges, as other things needed to go on in the room.

Now prior to this a labrynth was a sacred space to me...you didn't walk across the paths, you didn't play on it or run around yelling on them.... they were to be used for meditation and contemplation, for folks who wanted to 'walk'....

Well as I was walking my newly made labrynth....folks came in who had to access the space...they were chatting about this and that and simply walked straight across the middle of the labrynth while I and a couple others were walking it...

I was temporarily incensed...and then broke out in laughter realizing.... that I made contrived this thing....that it wasn't for them....that I was letting my path be disrupted by others that are on their path....that folks may walk whatever path they like...and sooo much more...the ego, my creation, the labrynth, sacred painters tape???

It made me realize, it doesn't matter the age or size of the synagogue, mosque or church, the age or tradition or liturgy, the book or rite, or whatever....they are all man made constructs, made holy not by the ONE...but by man for man, for the (wo)men that believe in the objects they've created....tis all egocentric...

tis my belief... if it is not yours.... so be it.
 
When you can't even recognize the Truth/s of your own ...
And you assume you do? You must excuse me, but there are two millenia of voices that renders that notion ridiculous.

Sorry, but the evidence that modern theosophy has consistently misinterpreted the ancient Traditions is, to my mind, undeniable. With regard to Christianity, McGregor's misrepresentation and fabrication of Origen's teaching to support his own thesis on reincarnation is enough to condemn it, and the fact that the Theosophical Association continues to promote the falsehood to this very day shows how bankrupt its founder's statement that 'there is no religion higher than truth' has become.

no. It becomes useful, perhaps necessary, to look elsewhere.
In some cases, perhaps, but that is an unfortunate aspect of the human condition, thinking the grass is always greener. Certainly many of the the saints and sages of all stripes didn't seem to feel the need ... and I find precious few saints and sages who did, although I find plenty of evidence of those spouting stuff they really haven't got to grips with. As the old saying goes, 'If only I knew then what I know now'.

I'd take a leaf from your own book, as you seem to delight in the odd film reference, and point to The Wizard of Oz, and some comment about it not being necessary to leave home?

Once you have a little better perspective (which includes the recognition that Truth is EVERYwhere) ... THEN look back at your own.
Well who said Truth isn't? (Apart from in the heart and on the lips of a liar?)
No, that's a common but dodgy assumption, chum. It's not a matter of perspective, but insight ... travel might broaden the mind, but it does not necessarily sharpen the intellect. Have you ever watched tourists?

Quality over quantity, every time.

If I count the various traditions or paths I've followed in 7 or 8 recent lifetimes, I won't get that many answers. What should that tell you?
Probably that you're so into 'looking' that you don't see what you've got under your nose?

How long will it take you to realise you're barking up the wrong tree? 7 or 8 lifetimes, and you've learnt next to nothing? sheesh!

Because I know better.
Really?

Really?

Really?

God bless,

Thomas
 
Hi SG —
Taoism emphasizes individual spirituality over propriety and what they called "hollow rituals."
I would like to understand how Taoism sees 'spirituality' in context of the whole person, as the point I've been arguing is that in the West, 'spirituality' and 'religion' are the same, the former is the essence or the latter, the latter is the form of the former, but the two cannot be separated.

Certainly, religion without essence becomes 'hollow ritual' ... but are there no 'full' rites in Taoism?

Conversely, I would argue that many of the 'I am spiritual but not religious' types are really hiding from the truth.

Frankly, I would not have the temerity to say "I am a spiritual person". As our Scripture says: "because every one that exalteth himself, shall be humbled: and he that humbleth himself, shall be exalted" (Luke 18:14).

The question really centres one whether we have to conform ourselves to It, whatever the Tradition determines 'It' to be, or whether 'It' must of necessity conform Itself to us.

God bless,

Thomas
 
I believe I may have related this story before....

I was asked to build a temporary labrynth in a space....I used painters tape and put it down on the floor... I made a simple six circuit one in the entire space... After I 'built' it I thought I should have made it smaller so folks could access the space around the edges, as other things needed to go on in the room.

Now prior to this a labrynth was a sacred space to me...you didn't walk across the paths, you didn't play on it or run around yelling on them.... they were to be used for meditation and contemplation, for folks who wanted to 'walk'....

Well as I was walking my newly made labrynth....folks came in who had to access the space...they were chatting about this and that and simply walked straight across the middle of the labrynth while I and a couple others were walking it...

I was temporarily incensed...and then broke out in laughter realizing.... that I made contrived this thing....that it wasn't for them....that I was letting my path be disrupted by others that are on their path....that folks may walk whatever path they like...and sooo much more...the ego, my creation, the labrynth, sacred painters tape???

It made me realize, it doesn't matter the age or size of the synagogue, mosque or church, the age or tradition or liturgy, the book or rite, or whatever....they are all man made constructs, made holy not by the ONE...but by man for man, for the (wo)men that believe in the objects they've created....tis all egocentric...

tis my belief... if it is not yours.... so be it.

+1 (10 character minimum) :cool:
 
Hi SG —

I would like to understand how Taoism sees 'spirituality' in context of the whole person, as the point I've been arguing is that in the West, 'spirituality' and 'religion' are the same, the former is the essence or the latter, the latter is the form of the former, but the two cannot be separated.

Certainly, religion without essence becomes 'hollow ritual' ... but are there no 'full' rites in Taoism?

Conversely, I would argue that many of the 'I am spiritual but not religious' types are really hiding from the truth.

Frankly, I would not have the temerity to say "I am a spiritual person". As our Scripture says: "because every one that exalteth himself, shall be humbled: and he that humbleth himself, shall be exalted" (Luke 18:14).

The question really centres one whether we have to conform ourselves to It, whatever the Tradition determines 'It' to be, or whether 'It' must of necessity conform Itself to us.

God bless,

Thomas

I think wil's post above highlights this perfectly, and is accordance with Taoist principles. :)
 
Back
Top